6.  In February 1995 the applicant was hired as a cook by a private limited company, Air Inn, which ran a restaurant in an Airport. Air Inn had rented the premises from the Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket), hereinafter called the CAA, which is a public body responsible for airports, air-traffic control and air safety in Sweden. When hired, the applicant was provided with a document giving him access to sensitive areas at the airport.
7.  On 1 July 1996 the Security Protection Act (Säkerhetsskyddslagen 1996:627) and the Security Protection Ordinance (Säkerhetsskyddsförordningen 1996:633) entered into force, on the basis of which, in 1998 Air Inn requested that the CAA run a security check, including a check of registers, on the applicant. The CAA had to request the National Police Board (Rikspolisstyrelsen) to check the registers. Thereafter, the National Police Board had to turn over the case, including the information found, to the Records Board (Registernämnden). The latter decided to communicate to the CAA that the applicant had been convicted of assault twice, in 1979 and 1998, respectively. The Records Board’s decision included the date of the judgments, the case numbers, the name of the district court, the criminal offences of which the applicant had been found guilty and the sentences imposed on him. The judgments, which were public and available at the relevant district court, were not enclosed with the decision. Subsequently, at a meeting with Air Inn and the Director of the Airport, the applicant had an opportunity to comment on the judgments. The applicant maintained that the first conviction concerned a youthful misdemeanour that had occurred more that twenty years earlier and that the last had stemmed from an incident within the applicant’s family at a time when the applicant had been under a great deal of stress due to his stepson’s psychiatric handicap (DAMP - deficit in attention, motor‑function and perception).
8.  By decision of 27 November 1998 addressed to Air Inn, the CAA found the applicant unreliable from a security point of view. Air Inn was accordingly ordered to prevent the applicant from participating in activities requiring personnel to pass a security check, and to turn in his airport access document to the Director of the Airport. The decision could not be appealed against. Air Inn had no opportunities to transfer the applicant to other work locations and he was thus given notice and suspended from work as from 1 February 1999.
9.  Subsequently, on the applicant’s behalf, his trade union, the Hotel and Restaurant Workers’ Union, instituted proceedings against Air Inn before the Labour Court claiming that the dismissal be declared void as being unjustified. By judgment of 16 February 2000, finding that Air Inn had no alternative other than to comply with the CAA’s decision, and that the applicant’s lack of access to the work place amounted to such a legal hindrance that Air Inn could invoke the right to be released from the employment agreement, the Labour Court found against the applicant.
10.  During the proceedings a main issue to be determined was whether the Labour Court had authority to review the decision of the CAA, notably whether the decision was based on legislation contravening the Swedish Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen) or otherwise was unlawful and thus not binding for Air Inn. The Labour Court answered this in the negative, stating inter alia that neither the Security Protection Act nor the Ordinance contained any rules on appeal against such a decision, and that even if the legality of the decision may be challenged elsewhere, formally or on the merits, nevertheless in the case before it the circumstances were such that Air Inn had to comply with the decision.